Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Recent events from the Middle East have placed the Muslim community in Britain in the public eye once more with their every word and action coming under microscopic scrutiny by the media and politicians. This is only the latest chapter in an ideological attack that has been ongoing for significantly longer.

Whereas the attacks on Islamic concepts of war, political governance and the unity of Muslim lands are nothing new, they have now increased on an unprecedented scale in the wake of the rise of ISIS and its declaration of a Caliphate. The matter is not about supporting or opposing the version of a Caliphate as demonstrated by ISIS but rather the criminalisation of Islamic political thought and ideology. The concepts of jihad, shariah and khilafah are not the exclusive possession of ISIS but core Islamic doctrines subscribed to by almost one third's of the world's population. It is telling that the government's treatment of ISIS is similar to its treatment of Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb-ut Tahrir, and the Taliban, despite the enormous differences of belief and methodology between the groups.

The Islamophobic nature of the criminalisation of those who believe in fighting in Syria against Assad is underlined by the lack of concern for British Jews who fight in the Israeli Occupation Forces, particularly at times where they are engaged in war crimes and other atrocities, such as the recent attack on Gaza.

On the flips side, Muslims who wish to aid their brothers and sisters through the provision of humanitarian aid via aid convoys are having their homes raided, being harassed by the security services and are effectively being accused of engaging in terrorism. Charities are having their bank accounts closed without explanation and are coming under investigation by the Charity Commission simply for being involved in crisis zones like Gaza and Syria. Witch-hunts such as the Trojan Horse hoax and the mass hysteria over issues of the niqab, halal food and conservative Muslim values demonstrate that the criminalisation is spreading beyond Middle Eastern politics. Individuals and organisations within the Muslim community who have been speaking out against these policies are now under attack. They have had their organisation, business and bank accounts arbitrarily closed. Even their children's bank accounts have been closed. They are maligned in the media as terrorist sympathisers, extremists and jihadists. Some have even been imprisoned.

The common element across all these cases is that those targeted cared for the oppressed and for those who are suffering. They have been criminalised because they cared.

Join CAGE at this series of events around the country to unite the Muslim communities against this criminalisation of our faith, our beliefs, our mosques and organisations, and our leaders. The following regional events will take place with the large conference taking place on 20 September at the Waterlily in London.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

“I want to see new civil powers to target extremists who stay within the law…”

British Home Secretary Theresa May addressed the Conservative Party conference proposing powers to ban Muslims from talking about Islam and politics or expressing views that she does not like.

Her proposals include “Disruption Orders” to stop people speaking publicly or posting messages on social media.

Her definition of ‘extremists’ will also include anybody who seeks to ‘overthrow democracy’. This would include anyone who opposes regimes in the Muslim world – such as those in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan and Bangladesh – all of which pay lip service to some democratic process but maintain a small secular elite in power whilst presiding over a mix of corruption, despotism and dysfunctional governance.

Her proposal should be seen as trying to achieve two ends.

The first is to further clamp down on expression of Islamic beliefs and political dissent within Britain.

The government’s existing ‘Prevent’ strategy already tries to do this in a McCarthyite way, but the UK government aims to put this on a legal footing.

It is proof, if ever it were needed, that secular democracies such as Britain can be as draconian or totalitarian in clamping down on competing beliefs or vocal challenges to its foreign policy interests as are states like Putin’s Russia or China.

The second end the government is seeking is nothing more than party political point scoring. As well as May’s draconian proposals, ministers have proposed “a crackdown on ‘absurd’ human rights rulings which threaten to hamper British troops carrying out vital missions” as well as a proposal that anyone said to attend countries like Syria and Pakistan to “train” (whatever that means) will be jailed for life – and May’s further proposal that she “needs to look that all sharia courts are operating within British values.’

The run up to the UK General Election in 2015 is likely to see the three main parties competing to be more anti-Muslim, anti-Immigrant, anti-European etc in order to steal votes from each other. Cameron’s political advisor, Lynton Crosby, was formerly an advisor to politicians in Australia, where a similar atmosphere existed before national elections.

May, who once described her own party as “the nasty party” shows now it is not simply her party that is “nasty”. It is her politics, her proposals, the atmosphere they plan to create in the UK over the next few months, and the interests (especially foreign policy interests) she seeks to protect.

What this and the former government fail to admit is that their political model fails to harmonise differing communities and viewpoints unless they are bullied into assimilation – which is why they have such policies riding off the back of anti-terror legislation. It is no different to the failure of convincing people in the Muslim world to accept secular, liberal, capitalist norms – which is why they have to bomb people into submission, or force them to accept despots and crooks as their rulers.

My prediction is that the atmosphere created by this sort of politics and the actual implementation of any of these policies will make people look more seriously at Islamic beliefs and make UK policies in the Muslim world appear more disgusting in the eyes of people everywhere.

Just as in Moscow and Beijing, draconian policies will be counterproductive.

It is all too often that we see democratic politicians soil their countries long term dignity for short term political gain.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Well what do you expect? The UK is a Zionist country. Muslims should not go there. What does it say in the Quran? Stay away from countries of your enemies or rub shoulders with them? What are Muslims doing going to the UK? It is a Jewish stronghold. My advise is that Muslims should leave the West as soon as they can as things can get very ugly very quickly. The British, Western Europe and Americans are just a pack of brigands controlled by International Jewry. Muslims are not safe there.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Originally Posted by Karl

Well what do you expect? The UK is a Zionist country. Muslims should not go there. What does it say in the Quran? Stay away from countries of your enemies or rub shoulders with them? What are Muslims doing going to the UK? It is a Jewish stronghold. My advise is that Muslims should leave the West as soon as they can as things can get very ugly very quickly. The British, Western Europe and Americans are just a pack of brigands controlled by International Jewry. Muslims are not safe there.

Salaams all.

Crikey, I guess that's an end to FREEDOM OF SPEECH for Muslims in the UK then. Funny she is going all crazy over Muslims. She should have a good look at the English Defence League Facebook page. Why are those mooses allowed to spew hatred and what not? Shouldn't they all be locked up too!

Muslims are not safe here but I doubt most "Muslims" will care. Life is good here. Who wants to say no to loads of free benefits / free council houses and what not. I doubt they would get any of that if they went back home.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Originally Posted by hisnameiszzz

Salaams all.

Crikey, I guess that's an end to FREEDOM OF SPEECH for Muslims in the UK then. Funny she is going all crazy over Muslims. She should have a good look at the English Defence League Facebook page. Why are those mooses allowed to spew hatred and what not? Shouldn't they all be locked up too!

Muslims are not safe here but I doubt most "Muslims" will care. Life is good here. Who wants to say no to loads of free benefits / free council houses and what not. I doubt they would get any of that if they went back home.

I suppose if Muslims want to go and live under a Zionist regime and sell out and mooch off the taxpayer for "free" benefits that's their business, but is that going to look good at the End of Days? So they are going for infidel materialism with no concern for their souls? Also that third world immigrant freeloader attitude is not good PR in the UK or any other Western country.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Originally Posted by Karl

I suppose if Muslims want to go and live under a Zionist regime and sell out and mooch off the taxpayer for "free" benefits that's their business, but is that going to look good at the End of Days? So they are going for infidel materialism with no concern for their souls? Also that third world immigrant freeloader attitude is not good PR in the UK or any other Western country.

Karl. Karl. Karl.

I don't think "Muslims" see it as living under a Zionist regime, it's more The Life Of Riley. Why do you think more and more want to come to the UK?

You don't have to work, you can sign on and get benefits and a fair whack too. Would they have that if they went back home to Pakistan/India/Bangladesh? I don't think so! You get free internet access in libraries where "Muslims" will happily go to sit and watch Bollywood movies for an hour or two. I've worked in libraries and I have seen it on a daily basis, aunties in burkhas and uncles in shalwar kabeez. You get council houses where you have the rent paid for you if you don't work. What more could someone want? Plus what about all the "Muslims" who are "disabled" but can do everything a normal person can, and get even more money than those on just normal state benefits? Why go back home when you can go to your "Muslim GP" who will happily make up some kind of disability for you so you can claim benefits on top of benefits?

I am not sure MOST "Muslims" give two hoots about the end of days. Everyone will flock to the Masjid on a Friday and when some senior Ulama comes from abroad, but does anyone listen to what is being said? Hell no. It goes straight over their heads. Take my neighbours for example. A "Muslim" family who go out of their way to make our life hell. They sometimes come to the Masjid, they listen to the non stop bayaans about Huquqool Ibaad and not causing anyone harm and what do they do? They cause us harm - continuous door slamming / hoovering late at night / parking in our yard / throwing all their litter in our yard etc etc etc. Do they seem like people that give two hoots about the end of days? I don't think so. If Muslims actually cared about the end of days, the Prisons would not be filled with young "Muslim" men.

By the way "Muslims" = Muslim by name and not nature and unfortunately, this is what the people in the goray in the UK see as genuine Muslims which is a huge shame.

Also, can I just add, it's not just "Muslims" who fleece the benefits system in the UK, everyone is at it. English/British/Europeans - everyone. Is it any wonder everyone wants to come here???

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Originally Posted by hisnameiszzz

Karl. Karl. Karl.

I don't think "Muslims" see it as living under a Zionist regime, it's more The Life Of Riley. Why do you think more and more want to come to the UK?

You don't have to work, you can sign on and get benefits and a fair whack too. Would they have that if they went back home to Pakistan/India/Bangladesh? I don't think so! You get free internet access in libraries where "Muslims" will happily go to sit and watch Bollywood movies for an hour or two. I've worked in libraries and I have seen it on a daily basis, aunties in burkhas and uncles in shalwar kabeez. You get council houses where you have the rent paid for you if you don't work. What more could someone want? Plus what about all the "Muslims" who are "disabled" but can do everything a normal person can, and get even more money than those on just normal state benefits? Why go back home when you can go to your "Muslim GP" who will happily make up some kind of disability for you so you can claim benefits on top of benefits?

I am not sure MOST "Muslims" give two hoots about the end of days. Everyone will flock to the Masjid on a Friday and when some senior Ulama comes from abroad, but does anyone listen to what is being said? Hell no. It goes straight over their heads. Take my neighbours for example. A "Muslim" family who go out of their way to make our life hell. They sometimes come to the Masjid, they listen to the non stop bayaans about Huquqool Ibaad and not causing anyone harm and what do they do? They cause us harm - continuous door slamming / hoovering late at night / parking in our yard / throwing all their litter in our yard etc etc etc. Do they seem like people that give two hoots about the end of days? I don't think so. If Muslims actually cared about the end of days, the Prisons would not be filled with young "Muslim" men.

By the way "Muslims" = Muslim by name and not nature and unfortunately, this is what the people in the goray in the UK see as genuine Muslims which is a huge shame.

Also, can I just add, it's not just "Muslims" who fleece the benefits system in the UK, everyone is at it. English/British/Europeans - everyone. Is it any wonder everyone wants to come here???

Are you for real? This sounds like Muslim bashing to me. I know there is a lot of white trash in Britain but it is at least their homeland. They don't need a load of third world trash to make things even worse. I suppose your being honest but with that attitude you can't blame a mob of drunk white nationalists kicking all your heads in on the weekends.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Originally Posted by Karl

Are you for real? This sounds like Muslim bashing to me. I know there is a lot of white trash in Britain but it is at least their homeland. They don't need a load of third world trash to make things even worse. I suppose your being honest but with that attitude you can't blame a mob of drunk white nationalists kicking all your heads in on the weekends.

No Muslim bashing at all. You said Muslims should go back and I mentioned some facts why they wouldn't. No bashing involved at all.

And yeah unfortunately white nationalists do beat Muslims up. That's why I don't go out unless it's absolutely necessary. No point in being targeted because of what Is doing.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

I don't think the white nationalists really care about religion, it's just that most Muslims are not Germanic. In Britain over time the word Muslim has become synonymous with immigrants from Asia and Africa, regardless of their religion. In the past when Britain was a Christian kingdom, Jews were persecuted. But now that it has turned cultural Marxist and Zionist the persecution has shifted to Muslims. Because Jews have taken the helm in Britain.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Salaam

Another update on the government propaganda campaign.

AND THEN THEY CAME FOR OUR PARENTS

Fahad Ansari dissects the latest Prevent-led initiative which is being pushed through a well known YouTuber. The video reduces legitimate grievances with Western foreign policy and foreign intervention to "hate" and condemns all forms of violence as unlawful without considering the legitimate right of resistance and self-defence when faced with violent oppression.

In its latest effort at social engineering, the British government has employed Humza Irshad of Diary of a Badman notoriety, to star in a short video, the stated purpose of which is to dissuade young British Muslims from becoming involved in terrorism. The plot of the Prevent-funded production with the rather ironic title, 'Think for Yourself', revolves around Irshad's efforts to rescue his more religious cousin from the clutches of a gang of Muslim extremists. Although credit should be given to Prevent for finally dropping the older generation of imams and community leaders that they had wheeled out for over a decade, in favour of a personality that is more in touch with Muslim youth, the film is likely to be received with much cynicism for two main reasons.

Firstly, the very fact that it is a Prevent project significantly undermines any message it is attempting to disseminate. Instead, it will be viewed as the latest attempt to set out the Islam that is acceptable without mentioning its political component and the parameters of jihad. This is evident in parts of the video where genuine grievances felt by British Muslims over Western policies and military intervention are simply reduced to 'HATE' that must inevitably lead to terrorism. While Western foreign policy is undoubtedly the primary and root cause of al-Qaeda related terrorism, it is instead equated alongside other oversimplified HATE factors such as 'Western governments', 'infidels', 'disbelievers' and 'Islamophobes', in an attempt to erode the actual role it plays in terrorism. A simplistic approach which does not even begin to engage with the basis of grievances real or imagined is doomed to failure.

Moreover, there is a conflation of criticism of Western military intervention as extremism. This would make Russell Brand and the anti-war movement in the same category as the extremists who need to be shunned. In the film, the hero Irshad condemns all forms of violence as not from Islam, with no distinction at all being drawn between jihad and terrorism. If there was a meaningful analysis of what is acceptable, if anything, in the way of self-defence (see below) rather than a denunciation of all resistance the film would resonate more with its target audience.

And this is the second reason. The actions of counter terrorism police and the politicised nature of terrorism prosecutions in Britain, as documented by research studies, has exposed the fallacy of the government narrative that they are acting to protect the British public. On the same day that Irshad's video was released, a number of pre-dawn raids took place in Portsmouth and Greenwich with six people being arrested, five of whom were members of the same family. Among those taken into custody included the sister, two brothers and parents of Ifthekar Jaman, a British Muslim killed fighting in Syria against pro-Assad forces in December last year. Jaman's parents are accused of failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism, related to overseas conflicts, essentially Syria.

Herein lies the problem. The government narrative, propped up by videos such as Irshad's, is that any form of violence motivated by Islam constitutes terrorism to be equated with beheadings, 9/11, 7/7 and other such attacks. As Muslims, while we condemn the targeting of civilians, we fundamentally believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves against oppression and that it is incumbent on all believers to come to the aid of the oppressed, using violence if necessary to deter the aggression. It is not an alien concept and can be found in every political ideology and form of governance throughout the ages. The concept is enshrined in both domestic and international law of all western nations, not to mention the United Nations Charter. Moreover, it is an innate and natural reaction to aggression within every human being and not just those who believe in Islam. Ifthekar Jaman by all accounts travelled to Syria with such intentions and died fighting against tyranny, for which he believed, God willing, he would be accepted as a martyr. His family and his parents crimes one assumes given the lack of any evidence thus far was not to view him as a terrorist. For if they did perceive his behaviour to be criminal and a threat to the public, they would have been both legally, and more importantly, morally obliged to report him to the police. But due to the conflation of terrorism with support for some resistance movements overseas as jihad, the law perceives both him and those who are aware of his actions and fail to disclose them, to be terrorists.

The very mothers who the police and Home Office have been targeting through the use of soft power via projects like FAST (Families Against Stress and Trauma) are now being criminalised if they fail to disclose information however remote. When DAC Helen Ball from New Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism unit launched a campaign in April this year to encourage Muslim women to report their sons or husbands if they suspected they were travelling to Syria, she claimed that it was not about criminalising people but preventing tragedies. The alleged heavy handed pre-dawn raid on Jaman's parents' home and their subsequent arrest and detention for failing to disclose (despite the police admission that there is no immediate threat to the public) underlines the case that the authorities actually care little for these families. The messages being sent out by such operations drown out Irshad's attempts to fight 'extremism'. For Muslim mothers, it is to either report your sons or risk arrest yourself. For potential foreign fighters, it is that your mother, your father, your wife, and your sister will all be criminalised and targeted as a result of your actions.

The mistreatment of Jaman's parents is likely to be as damaging to community relations with the police and set back counter-terrorism efforts as the brutal assault on Babar Ahmad in 2003, the shooting of Mohammed Abdul Kahar in Forest Gate in 2006, the entrapment of Munir Farooqi by undercover officers posing as Muslims for two years in 2009, the prosecution of Ahmed Faraz for selling books in 2011, and this year's prosecution of ex-Guantanamo detainee and civil rights activist Moazzam Begg. Let us not forget the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who feel criminalised on a daily basis at airports and ferry ports under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. No amount of Prevent funding and outreach programmes with youth culture icons are going to undo the damage caused by the perception of everyday policing that is criminalising Muslims for practising their religion. All it will do is taint those who associate with Prevent.

In Irshad's video, he reprimands his cousin about associating with 'extremists' warning, "You can go and meet them and then do something stupid and then ruin your life". How I wish that someone had provided Irshad with that advice before he sat with Prevent.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Salaam

Another update

Islam, Violence and the Science of Bigotry

Over the last decade, it has become increasingly apparent that Muslims are receiving the kind of treatment once reserved for blacks, Jews and Irish – dehumanized groups that were also the victims of racial and ethnic prejudice and violence. Anti-Muslim prejudice is now seen by many as normal and uncontroversial, as the patronising, superficial way Islam is discussed in powerful and far reaching quarters make the world a less tolerant place for believers.

“We have to be able to criticize bad ideas and Islam is the motherload of bad ideas,” said Neo-Atheist Sam Harris in a heated TV discussion with actor Ben Affleck. Not to be outdone, controversial host Bill Maher was quick to echo the sentiment,“It’s the only religion that acts like the Mafia.”

The trio, appearing on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, collided while debating whether large numbers of the Muslim population are inherently violent with an oppressive and backward outlook to life.

Seeking an explanation, Affleck then asked the panelists: “What is your answer? Is it just to condemn Islam? We’ve killed more Muslims than they have killed us by an awful lot. Yet somehow we are exempt from these things. Because they are not really a reflection of what we believe in.”

He then added sarcastically: “It was by accident, that’s how we invaded Iraq. I am explicitly telling you that I disagree with what you think.”But Maher disparagingly tells the actor: “We are obviously not convincing anyone here.”

Dehumanised

While Maher might be the loudest and most frank in his bigotry towards Muslims, the inclusion of academics such as Sam Harris points to a subtler, more pervasive and far more dangerous ‘anti-Islam’ that has crept into mainstream coverage. This is the type of Islamophobia that presents itself as a critical and candid study of ‘Islamic Extremism’, but in the process does just what Maher does; it assumes that the violent actions of reactionary movements are the default position of all Muslims and that they share inherent traits making them worse than other human beings. Sam Harris’ methodology is an attempt to employ ‘science’ and the charade of objectivity to legitimise contempt towards other communities. Prompting memories of ‘scientific racism’ and Nazi Eugenics, a forced sterilisation program engineered by the Nazis to improve the Germanic “master race”, that sought to justify its abhorrent policy with reference to Charles Darwin’s magnum opus: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

Far from voicing criticisms of Islam as part of a general critique of religion, Harris has repeatedly made clear that he thinks Islam is uniquely threatening, requiring specific policies above and beyond those required for other groups. “While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization.” He has insisted that there are unique dangers from Muslims possessing nuclear weapons, as opposed to nice Western secularists (the only ones to ever use them) or those kind Israeli Zionists: “It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence.” In his 2005 “End of Faith”, he claimed that “Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thorough going cult of death.”

Such conclusions are nothing short of a sustained demonisation campaign particularly at a time the Western world has been engaged in more than a decade long splurge of violence, aggression and abuses against Muslims.

More significantly, Harris has used his views about Islam to justify a wide range of vile policies aimed primarily, if not exclusively at Muslims, from torture (“there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like ‘water-boarding’ may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary“); to steadfast support of Israel, which he considers morally superior to its Muslim adversaries (“In their analyses of US and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder non-combatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so…there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah“); to Muslim profiling (“We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it“); to state violence (“On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right. This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that ‘liberals are soft on terrorism.’ It is, and they are“). He argued for extrajudicial killing of Muslim suspects like in the CIA drone programme (“some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them“); and even advocated nuclear first strike in the advent of an “Islamist nation” acquiring nuclear weapons capability (“the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe“).

A climate of bigotry has allowed standards to be applied to Muslims that could not be applied under conventional circumstances. Those who advocate these measures (torture, extrajudicial killing, profiling, nuclear first strike etc) effectively claim that, unlike the West, it is the political beliefs of Muslims in Sharia law – namely cutting the hand of the thief, the beliefs regarding women and apostasy laws – that lead to the problems and instability that exists in Muslim lands. A shallow judgement is made connecting progress in the West with its secular values and regress in the Muslim world with Islamic values. However, a more insightful analysis demonstrates otherwise.

State Terrorism

Rather than its adherence to abstract ideals, much of the accumulation of wealth and material progress in the Western hemisphere is a consequence of centuries of colonialism, genocide and a massive exploitation of slave labour.

This was summarised by Samuel P Huntington when he said:

“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence, Westerners often forget this fact, but non-Westerners never do”

On the other hand, the challenges Muslims withstand are a relatively modern phenomena. Far from an outcome of what liberals assume are primitive values adopted from Islam, the volatility in Muslim lands are in fact the aftermath of post-colonial brutality and proxy wars sanctioned by the leading states to this day.

In his book, A Peace to End All Peace, David Fromkin, Professor and expert on Economic History at the University of Chicago explained how the current situation in the Muslim world came about:

“Massive amounts of wealth of the old Ottoman Empire were now claimed by the victors. But one must remember that the Islamic empire had tried for centuries to conquer Christian Europe and the power brokers deciding the fate of those defeated people were naturally determined that these countries should never be able organise and threaten Western interests again. With centuries of mercantilist experience, Britain and France created small, unstable states whose rulers needed their support to stay in power. The development and trade of these states were controlled and they were meant never again to be a threat to the West. These external powers then made contracts with their puppets to buy Arab resources cheaply, making the feudal elite enormously wealthy while leaving most citizens in poverty.”

The colonial legacy is not simply a relic of the past but responsible for much of what is taking place today. In 2009, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak and his wife as ‘family friends’. The US rewarded his regime and his arguably more ruthless successor Sisi handsomely with billions to sustain them. In 2011, when informed of Hafez Al Assad’s crime of butchering 25,000 people during an uprising against the Syrian regime, Clinton noted that the son, Bashar, was now in power and he was a “different leader” and a “reformer”. Confident of American support, Bashar’s regime went on to oversee the slaughter of 200,000 people with the death toll still rising. Perhaps this confidence was born from the intimate relationship the US enjoyed with Syria following 9/11; Syria was a favourite destination for the US ‘extraordinary rendition’ program. Here, terror suspects were abducted and transferred to secret prisons where “interrogations” (torture or simply making people disappear) could be conducted without the bureaucracy of trials and evidence.

Horrendous crimes of the secular Western states are masked by ideological language. Euphemisms make the inconceivable sound palatable. Millions of deaths of Iraqi citizens are justified in the name of “liberal interventionism”. Bombing a group of unknown individuals in the tribal borders of Pakistan will be referred to as “servicing the target”. States where Muslim populations are mercilessly repressed by Western-backed despots are referred to as “stable” states. Daily Israeli acts of war committed against Gaza are referred as “peace-time”. The reality on the ground does not reflect the language in political discourse.

To detach Western interference from the crisis that exists in the Muslim world would be ignorant at best. However, when advocated by self-styled political experts, one is more inclined to feel this error of judgement is a deliberate ploy designed to sidestep inconvenient truths that do not fit narratives against Islam and Muslims. A narrative that attempts to place the sole blame of the current plight of the Muslim world on Islam while completely ignoring that the Middle East is a post-colonial construction.

Perspective

For neoliberals it seems that turning a blind eye to colonial blowback isn’t enough – with claims of “Jihadi extremism” being the most pressing issue to the stability of the modern world, the Maher and Harris contribution went on to popularising the claim that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but (nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.” Despite this idea becoming self-evident in some circles, it is simply not factual. Official FBI records show that only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980 to 2005 were carried out by Islamic extremists. The remaining 94% were from other groups (42% from Latinos, 24% from extreme left wing groups, 7% from extremist Jews, 5% from communists, and 16% from all other groups).

For Europe, Europol publishes an annual report entitled EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report. On their official website, the reports from 2006 to 2012 are accessible and the results are profound.

An overwhelming 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam. Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups. Only a measly 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2006 to 2012 could be attributed to Muslims.

Sensationalising and selective reporting have certainly skewed perceptions. Violence is not a monopoly of the Muslims but a consistent response from those who have been politically subjugated – suicide bombing was a popular tactic of Sri Lanka’s communist Tamil Tigers long before it became by-words for Islamic terrorism. The Buddhist insurgents of Tibet are accused of orchestrating the unrest and violence in parts of China; in 2008 the Ministry of Public Security spokesperson claimed searches of monasteries in the Tibetan capital had turned up a large cache of weapons, including 176 guns and 7,725 pounds of explosives. With innumerable such examples across the world, it raises the question as to why undue focus is given to Islam and why violent reactions are stripped from the political context? Such an approach only deflects criticism from Western policies that fuels acts of violence, blaming the reaction while absolving oneself of the cause.

Conclusion

With the zeal to impose (through wars and aggressive policies) liberal values on Muslims at its peak, neoliberal cheerleaders are absolutely convinced of furthering a disruptive reform that is on a historically unprecedented scale. It is a reform that wants to see an entire world discarded, with no remnants of its natural heritage, including its social and political institutions.

The rule of law, justice and security are all hopes and aspirations of Muslims that were demonstrated successfully via Islamic governance, under the legitimate Caliphate for over a millennium. Holding differing ideals to a self-righteous Eurocentric worldview to achieve this has never been an obstacle to remarkable progress and stability. In his book “The Spirit of World Politics”, this realisation led Professor Hocking of Harvard University to admit:

“Islamic lands will not progress by merely imitating Western arrangements and values. Can Islam produce fresh thinking, independent laws and relevant statutes to fit the new needs raised by modern society? Yes! – and more! Islam offers humanity greater possibilities for advance than others can. Its lack is not ability – but the will to use it. In reality the Shariah contains all the ingredients needed.”

Unfortunately, the ideological and agenda-driven nature of Capitalist states means that a sincere and detailed examination within powerful, far reaching circles in the West has become a bleak prospect. Today’s neoliberals have formed superficial arguments that make causal links between Islamic values and the state of the Muslim world. The use of haphazard narratives only justifies violence against Muslims, where science and authority figures are used as tools of propaganda. The challenge is to refocus the discussion in its appropriate place, where correlation (when things happen together or in sequence) is not confused for causation (where one thing actually causes the other to happen). Far from being an independent entity, the mass media is generally an extension of the government apparatus. While imperialism persists in Muslim lands, the intellectual war of ideas merely represents a culmination of a long and violent campaign carried out by the West.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Salaam

And another update

NEW CAGE REPORT WARNS AGAINST CLASSIFYING MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AS 'TERRORIST'

London, UK] CAGE has warned that moves by the British government to crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and all groups associated with it will increase anti-British sentiment in the UK and around the world, as well as foster a culture of suspicion and polarisation.

The government review will allow for: investigations into charities deemed to be “fronts” for the MB; enquiries into the funding of the MB and alleged links to militant groups abroad; and bans on clerics from Qatar and Turkey who are linked to the MB from visiting Britain.

The review comes in the wake of a Cabinet Office report, compiled but not yet published, that alleges “an incredibly complex web” of up to 60 organisations in Britain, including charities, think tanks and even television channels, with links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The review was called on the back of government claims that the Muslim Brotherhood were connected to the killing of Lee Rigby in Woolwich, as well as claims that it was involved in a violent attack on a tourist bus in Sinai which killed three people. [2] In fact, the al-Qaeda-linked group, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, has claimed responsibility for the Sinai attack, while Rigby’s killers have no proven ties to the MB.
CAGE has numerous concerns about claims that the MB “might be a terrorist organisation”, as well as in terms of the political influences on the report, and its timing – in the wake of the group’s recent designation as a ‘terrorist organisation’ by the military regime in Egypt and by its political and financial backers in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Ironically, Al-Qaeda leaders have repeatedly denounced the Muslim Brotherhood for a host of charges; paramount among these is its support for democracy.

Only five countries have designated the Muslim Brotherhood a ‘terrorist organisation’: Syria, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

“The public must be assured that foreign regimes and private defense companies hold no sway over British policy. The choice of Britain’s current ambassador to Saudi Arabia to lead the review must also be questioned,” said CAGE research director Asim Qureshi.

“This review was launched just six weeks after BAE Systems struck a major sales deal with the Saudis and just three weeks after Saudi Arabia’s designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a ‘terrorist organisation’.”

“The UK government’s apparent confusion about the roots and role of the Muslim Brotherhood is questionable since the organisation has existed openly for over 86 years, has countless records of its activities, and David Cameron met with its leaders last year.”

“Leaks now confirm that the report states the obvious: the Muslim Brotherhood aren’t a violent organisation. The government should publish the report immediately and stop pandering to those who won’t agree with its findings.”

These concerns take place within the context of CAGE’s ongoing alarm at the British government’s increasingly broad definition of “extremism”, which targets ideology and belief as opposed to actual criminal activity, thereby threatening individual thought and freedom.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Originally Posted by truthseeker63

Most White Nationalists hate Jews as well as People of Color and Homosexuals.

Wow so they are two thirds Muslim then. LOL
The reason they hate coloured immigrants is because they steal the jobs off them. Zionist employers would rather give jobs to insecure sycophantic immigrants than to big white short tempered pro union knuckle draggers. The Zionists are also trying to crossbreed the races as they find whites too big, obnoxious and have a long record of hating and killing Jews. Things may backfire, God works in mysterious ways. This Zio Marxist lefty liberal movement may fail as people begin to yearn for conservatism and the old way.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Salaam

More on the British government attempts to dictate to Muslims what they can and cannot believe.

PREVENT INFILTRATES BIRKBECK AND SHUTS DOWN IHRC ISLAMOPHOBIA EVENT

CAGE are very concerned to have read about Birkbeck College who have taken the cowardly step of forcing the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) to find an alternative venue for their Islamophobia conference, due to begin tomorrow.

The purpose of this conference was to tackle the rise of Islamophobia in the UK. The university got the local council PREVENT officer involved.

PREVENT is the UK government’s “anti-terrorism” strategy. It is incredibly broad and clearly politically driven, using a government approved, unchallenged definition of ‘extremism’.

There is a worrying trend that, even before the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill has been passed there is a clear ramping up of the PREVENT programme.

As CAGE’s PREVENT report shows, this is a comprehensive policy which has far outstripped its stated remit. “This is what PREVENT has always been all about,” says Asim Qureshi, Research Director at CAGE. “It’s always been a social engineering programme to legitimise the government sponsored version of Islam only.”

PREVENT has covertly shut down events organised by mainstream Muslim organisations, where issues like Palestine and Guantanamo Bay have been under discussion. It is notable that the IHRC event in question here was on islamophobia and the racist scapegoating of Muslims. Is this now a forbidden topic for Muslims’ to be concerned about?

Furthermore the capitulation to PREVENT by a renowned University is something that should be a concern to wider civil society organizations.

IHRC are a long established organisation who campaign for human rights, their conference will be shown on livestream here.

CAGE is building awareness and constantly highlights and challenges PREVENT. Find out more about the PREVENT programme on www.cageuk.org or read the full report here.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Two Muslim charities have lost their grants after the government claimed they had links with Islamist extremism.

A spokesman for Birmingham-based Islamic Help, said it was "surprised, dismayed and angered" by the action.

The Muslim Charities Forum (MCF), said the decision was based on "unfounded allegations".

The Department for Communities and Local Government said it would not fund any group "linked to individuals who fuel hatred, division and violence".

In a written statement the Secretary of State for the department, Eric Pickles, claimed Islamic Help had invited "an individual with extremist views" to speak at an event, and that the MCF - an umbrella organisation for Muslim charities - had "failed to reassure us that they have robust measures in place to investigate and challenge their members."

A spokesman for Islamic Help said the speaker alleged to have extremist views had not been identified to them.

The DCLG has so far refused to name him or her publicly.

'Not political platforms'

The spokesman for Islamic Help, which provides emergency relief following major disasters and has worked in Gaza, the Central African Republic and Syria, has said its events are to raise money for humanitarian work and not political platforms.

He said although the amount of money they would lose [about £7,000] was a "drop in the ocean", the move "besmirches the reputation and integrity" of people who had taken part in their campaigns.

The charity had not received any notification from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), the spokesman said.

Mr Pickles said only programmes which "uphold fundamental British values" would receive aid.

Both Islamic Help and the MCF had received the money through the Faith Minorities in Action project, which was set up by the DCLG in March last year.

The scheme, established in conjunction with the Extremism Task Force, was designed to encourage integration by promoting interfaith work, the role of women in faith, tackling youth crime and to provide child protection training.

'Best practice'

The Muslim Charities Forum was awarded the contract to implement the scheme, which included running workshops to "share experiences and best practice on addressing a wide variety of social and community issues".

Mr Pickles said the MCF had not been meeting objectives and was unable to reassure him that the body was sufficiently rigorous over its members' activities.

The MCF said it was unaware of any perceived failings, and that it had not been contacted by the DCLG about the decision to stop the cash.

A spokesman for the forum said: "We will continue to foster cooperation and positive relationships between Muslim charities and other faith and community groups.

"We have responded to the DCLG to reassure them of our processes, the vital importance of the work we do, and of the Faith Minorities in Action project."

The DCLG is due to launch a new call for applications from organisations able to work in collaboration with faith groups and to deliver effective support, Mr Pickles said.

The money comes from the government's integration strategy, which between 2010 and March 2015 is expected have invested about £50m in community and interfaith projects.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Perhaps being a practicing Muslim will one day be considered a criminal offence.

Sharia law guidelines abandoned as Law Society apologises

Law Society apologises over advice to solicitors on how to draw up Sharia-style wills penalising widows and non-believers[/B]

The Law Society has withdrawn controversial guidelines for solicitors on how to compile “Sharia compliant” wills amid complaints that they encouraged discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

Andrew Caplen, president of the society, apologised and said the criticism had been taken on board.

It follows a storm of protest after The Telegraph disclosed in March that the society had issued a practice note to solicitors effectively enshrining aspects of Islamic law in the British legal system.

The guidelines advised High Street solicitors on how to write Islamic wills in a way that would be recognised by courts in England and Wales.

They set out principles which meant that women could be denied an equal share of inheritances while unbelievers could be excluded altogether.

The document also detailed how children born out of wedlock might not be counted as legitimate heirs.

Mr Caplen’s predecessor as president, Nicholas Fluck, strongly resisted criticism of the guidelines when details were published in March.

But in a short statement the society said it now had decided to withdraw them in light of “feedback” from the public and lawyers themselves.

"Our practice note was intended to support members to better serve their clients as far as is allowed by the law of England and Wales,” said Mr Caplen.

"We reviewed the note in the light of criticism.

“We have withdrawn the note and we are sorry."

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, who campaigned for the guidelines to be withdrawn, said: “This is an important reverse for what had seemed to be the relentless march of sharia to becoming de facto British law.

“Until now, politicians and the legal establishment either encouraged this process or spinelessly recoiled from acknowledging what was happening.

“I congratulate the Law Society for heeding the objections we and others made.

“This is particularly good news for women who fare so badly under sharia law, which is non-democratically determined, non-human rights compliant and discriminatory code.”

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Salaam

Another update

DON'T LIKE THE PC MOB? WELL NOW THAT MAKES YOU A TERROR THREAT

We are on the verge of founding Britain’s first Thought Police.

Using the excuse of terrorism – whose main victim is considered thought – Theresa May’s Home Office is making a law which attacks free expression in this country as it has never been attacked before.
We already have some dangerous laws on the books. The Civil Contingencies Act can be used to turn Britain into a dictatorship overnight, if politicians can find an excuse to activate it.

But the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, now slipping quietly and quickly through Parliament, is in a way even worse. It tells us what opinions we should have, or should not have.
As ever, terrorism is the pretext. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that the criminal drifters, school drop-outs and drug-addled losers who do much terrorist dirty work (and whose connections with vast worldwide conspiracies are sketchy to say the least) will be even slightly affected by it.

In a consultation paper attached to the Bill, all kinds of institutions, from nursery schools (yes really, see paragraph 107) to universities, are warned that they must be on the lookout for ‘extremists’.
But universities are told they have a ‘responsibility to exclude those promoting extremist views that support or are conducive to terrorism’.
Those words ‘conducive to’ are so vague that they could include almost anybody with views outside the mainstream.

What follows might have come from the laws of the Chinese People’s Republic or Mr Putin’s Russia. Two weeks’ advance notice of meetings must be given so that speakers can be checked up on, and the meeting cancelled if necessary.
Warning must also be given of the topic, ‘sight of any presentations, footage to be broadcast, etc’. A ‘risk assessment’ must be made on whether the meeting should be cancelled altogether, compelled to include an opposing speaker or (even more creepy) ‘someone in the audience to monitor the event’.

Institutions will be obliged to promote ‘British values’. These are defined as ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs’. ‘Vocal and active opposition’ to any of these is now officially described as ‘extremism’.

Given authority’s general scorn for conservative Christianity, and its quivering, obsequious fear of Islam, it is easy to see how the second half will be applied in practice. As for ‘democracy’, plenty of people (me included) are not at all sure we have it, and wouldn’t be that keen on it if we did.

Am I then an ‘extremist’ who should be kept from speaking at colleges? Quite possibly. But the same paragraph (89, as it happens) goes further. ‘We expect institutions to encourage students to respect other people with particular regard to the protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act 2010’.

These ‘protected characteristics’, about which we must be careful not to be ‘extremist’, are in fact the pillars of political correctness – including disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, sex and sexual orientation.
The Bill is terrible in many other ways. And there is no reason to believe that any of these measures would have prevented any of the terrorist murders here or abroad, or will do so in future.
They have been lifted out of the box marked ‘try this on the Home Secretary during a national panic’, by officials who long to turn our free society into a despotism.

Once, there would have been enough wise, educated, grown-up people in both Houses of Parliament to stand up against this sort of spasm. Now most legislators go weak at the knees like simpering teenage groupies whenever anyone from the ‘Security’ or ‘Intelligence’ services demands more power and more money.

So far there has been nothing but a tiny mouse-squeak of protest against this dangerous, anti-British, concrete-headed twaddle. It will go through. And in ten years’ time we’ll wonder why we’re locking people up for thinking.
We’ll ask: ‘How did that happen?’ This is how it happens.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

Salaam

And another

HOW THE GOVERNMENT MAKES YOU INTO A TERRORIST WITHOUT EVER ARRESTING YOU

In this piece, Asim Qureshi Research Director at CAGE takes us through how a routine stop under Schedule 7 and its specially engineered questions, can lead to oppressive civil orders leaving the individual having been declared guilty without judicial oversight, left to prove their innocence. Further, concerns about the implementation of the new Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill which seeks to arbitrarily impose orders under the elusive idea of “extremism”.

I want you to imagine going through an airport where you are subjected to a Schedule 7 stop under the 2000 Terrorism Act. This stop results in you being taken away, and asked questions not only about your travel, but also pushes you to answer questions about your family, your mosque, your Islamic teachers, your religious views and your politics. Personal experience and the experience of others, tells us that questions like, “What type of Muslim are you?” and “What do you think about Palestine?” are among the more common questions that are asked.

Due to the nature of the Schedule 7 law, it is not possible to avoid answering the questions of the interrogating officer, rather, failure to do so could result in being arrested and charged with an offence. How is this information used though? What potential value might it have for the security agencies?

At the time of the stop you may not think too much of the Schedule 7 stop other than to be annoyed by the fact that you were profiled and made to feel like some form of threat. What you were probably not prepared for, was what would take place next.

According to the definition of extremism, laid out in the UK government’s Prevent strategy, vocal or active opposition to democracy, British values and the armed forces, makes you an extremist. Whether you realised it or not, the interview conducted under your Schedule 7 stop, will have informed the government if they feel that your answer fits into this criteria.

The next thing you know, a letter will come to your home informing you or your family that you have had your citizenship removed, or you have had your passport revoked, been placed under a financial sanctions regime, or you have been placed under a form of house arrest. As you scan the letter to try and understand the reason for this, all you are given is the fact the government considers you to be an ‘Islamist extremist’.

There has been no judicial oversight as to why this has happened, just an arbitrary decision made by the Home Secretary on the advice of the security agencies.

You decide that you want to challenge this arbitrary order against you. As you sit down with your lawyer to understand where you stand, you are told that the vast majority of the government’s information against you, you will never see. All you will do, is see the gist of the evidence, but won’t actually know what it is. Further, your lawyer will not be able to see the evidence either. Both you and your lawyer will be excluded from hearing the evidence of the agencies.

Not to fear though. In the government’s wisdom, they have assigned to you someone known as a special advocate to sit in the court. While the secret evidence is being presented, this special advocate will represent your interests. Except…you are not permitted to speak to the special advocate, neither is your lawyer. The special advocate has no way of ascertaining whether or not the evidence the government is presenting is flawed at all in any way.

What I am asking you to imagine, is a process that has been taking place for over a decade in the UK. There have been over one hundred and fifty cases where individuals have had to fight not just for their freedom, but even the simple right of knowing what the evidence is against them.

The environment that has been engineered by the government is one where the criminal law space has been moved into the civil space, reversing the burden of proof. Now, the government is able to apply arbitrary orders on you, expecting you to then explain why you are innocent, not the other way around.

With the new Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill coming through, there is more danger than ever that individuals will be labelled as extremists, resulting in increased arbitrary civil orders. Once the government’s Extremism Disruption Orders also come into being, there is no telling how far abuses against communities will go.

Re: Syria, Gaza and the Criminalisation of Islam

It's the kabbalist zionists man,
Right from since they formed the templar order and took over the the papacy and western hemisphere and scrubbed out official records (the dark ages), they seem to have been dictating policy and method of administration in the incrementally "secularised" countries they gained control over.

In britain the whole court system echoes with similitudes even though it was never officially controlled by jews.

Ok, back in the days when faith existed among the descendents of those whom Allah saved from the famine in the time of yusuf pbuh, leaders from the twelve tribes of Israel (comes from the twelve sons of jacob pbuh though the name of yusuf is for some reason absent) would make unanimous decisions on behalf of the whole people by what Allah revealed.

Each of the twelve tribes enjoyed a good deal of autonomy, ordering its own affairs after the patriarchal-tribal pattern.
No doubt there were administrative institutions common to all the tribes, situated beside the central shrines, though information about them is exceedingly scanty. During the desert wanderings, leadership of the people was vested in the princes of each of the tribes and the elders who assisted*Moses. They met and legislated for the entire people. There are references to meetings of tribal leaders and elders during the periods of the settlement and the Judges. "The princes of the congregation, the heads of the thousands of Israel" along with Phinehas the priest, conducted negotiations with the Transjordanian tribes, in the name of the entire nation. Joshua summoned "the elders, the heads, the judges, and the officers of Israel" to make a covenant in Shechem. The elders of Israel, speaking for the entire nation, requested Samuel to appoint a king. The incidents of the concubine in Gibeah and Saul's battle with Nahash the Ammonite are classic examples of joint action taken by the league of twelve tribes acting "as one man, from Dan even to Beer-Sheba, with the land of Gilead". In the one case, unified action was taken by the tribes against one of their members, Benjamin, for a breach of the terms of the covenant. The war against Nahash the Ammonite proves that the tribes were required to come to the aid of any one of the league that found itself in difficulty. Because of the sacral nature of the league, the wars of the tribes were considered "wars of the Lord". Nevertheless, the narratives in the Book of Judges regarding the battles which Israel waged against its enemies make it clear that the league must have been rather weak in those days.

Those were the twelve members of Jewry reaching verdicts which were judged by what Allah revealed.

But what took place afterwards is obvious to any who cares to look at the "secular" court systems.

To understand that a babylonian streak has seeped through history via some who claim to be jews, one only has to search term the emblem of the "church of satan", one will find hebrew codes plastered all over it.

And to see how it infected england, one needs just look at ch 17 of the book orevelation and compare it with the queen's throne at parliament.

One effect of the crusades was that britain started getting religious, king james 1 issues an official translation of previous remnants of scripture etc, his son king james 2 gets conquered by the dutch william of orange in 1690 and the bank of england gets created in 1694, then they turn paper into gold - or gold into paper - and start playing satanic monopoly with the world.
The orange order is masonic through and through, google it if you think i've gone mad.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up

Options

Site Links

About

Welcome to IslamicBoard - Discover Islam | Connect with Muslims!
IslamicBoard is one of the leading Islamic discussion forum for anyone who wants to learn more about Islam or simply interact with Muslims from all over the world.